The judge decided NOT to change the law, but rather to tell plaintiffs that it was their job to challenge Congress and get the law repealed. That is why I believe Lamberth's ruling will be upheld. He ruled on the side of the law instead of legislating from the bench.
but I fail to see any reason to suggest that he wanted to change the law in any way
he read the law the plain English (on its face) of the law said courts stay away
he stayed away
now that is way too simple for such a large important case it appears there were games and shenanigans (lies and deceit)
we will see
indeed - I will repeat my belief that in the appeals group we need two judges (or three) who will refuse to be barred by the plain English ............ (or who in general hate judicial bars and always look for reasons to go around them -- remember these are huge egos --- oops I mean these are judges
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
